Skip navigation
14comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Huynh Phu Dat

Jul 31, 2014
09:18

Member


1 |
Share via:
Dear climaterescue How can whole #systemchange enable fast #climaterescue? https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300701/planId/1310001 … We want system change fast, we must change policy of 1 countries . You can change a group , a team very easy . Change a policy of a country even very difficult but will give you ability that you can change system of 1 country . If policy of 1 country change like your policy , system will change like you wish . But affect the policy of a country is difficult and affect policies of all country is top difficult if you want " whole system change " .

Climate Rescue

Aug 1, 2014
03:19

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks for your comment. This is certainly the accepted view, that we should focus on the systems that seem managaeable such as single countries. My view is that this may be a mental trap from which sustainability has not emerged for 4 decades - and cannot. The proposed actions could be applied at smaller scales though global action is needed to actually solve global problems. For example, many countries have small weapons spending but this doesn't stop the rise of global weapons spending and conflicts around the world. The interesting thing about so called 'top down change' is that it's not even been attempted internationally. All I've seen is weak efforts at weak agreements on selected topics. Perhaps a really coherent solution wouldn't be so difficult if actually tried?!

Huynh Phu Dat

Aug 1, 2014
09:26

Member


3 |
Share via:
Dear climaterescue , Global security = climate security + food security + economic security + environmental security + national security + water security +... If I were you , I will change it like this : Global security = climate security + + population security + food security + economic security + environmental security + national security + water security +... . We have a limit of population , but no one talk about it because no one know it . For example, many countries have small weapons spending but this doesn't stop the rise of global weapons spending and conflicts around the world. We have weapons don't meant we attack or use weapons . When we attack others countries with weapons , that is another problem . All I've seen is weak efforts at weak agreements on selected topics. Perhaps a really coherent solution wouldn't be so difficult if actually tried?! Because interests between country and country are different , that why they never try . All formal education will aim to be led by curiosity rather than just delivery of predetermined content Rapid reduction of carbon emissions and the rapid expansion of carbon sinks. In my opinion , we should teach them focus more on carbon sinks - it look like we attack climate change

Jan Kunnas

Aug 12, 2014
04:19

Member


4 |
Share via:
Sounds nice. It would be great if the whole world would that this giant step simultaneously. I do, however, not believe that it would happen. Some countries or groups of countries must take the first step, hoping that the rest will follow their example. Thus there is a clear connection with my proposal, to unleash the power of example: https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300701/phaseId/1301102/planId/1308202

Climate Rescue

Aug 12, 2014
12:06

Member


5 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks Huynh Population is an interesting dynamic. Less security means more population, so best limited by doing all 7 actions to get global security. Action 4 on weapons spending should be done globally. Even when not used, $1t of weapons still means $1t less to spend solving any other problem. Are there really any countries where global security is not relevant? Perhaps countries don't try action on the necessary scale of ambition because too few people tell them to do it? Carbon sinks and emissions cuts are both needed. Please see the related proposal for actions on each. https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300404/phaseId/1300404/planId/1309209

Climate Rescue

Aug 12, 2014
12:33

Member


6 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks Jan I guess either simultaneous or staged action is possible. Of course one of the things that advanced-thinking countries can do is to expand the debate so other countries learn that system change policy even exists as an option. The power of example sounds good, though not sure I can tell how it's different from what has been tried already over past decades?

Jan Kunnas

Aug 13, 2014
10:20

Member


7 |
Share via:
Releasing the power of example is exactly how the issues of acid rain and the destruction of the ozone layer was solved as you can read from my proposal and here: http://www.e-ir.info/2013/03/16/climate-change-the-lessons-from-history/ Simultaneous action again was the starting point for the Kyoto-protocol, and also the goal of the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009. I would love to to be able to say that they were successes.

Huynh Phu Dat

Aug 13, 2014
10:05

Member


8 |
Share via:
Oh , now I understood what is model .

Jan Kunnas

Aug 13, 2014
12:53

Member


9 |
Share via:
The debt swap part of my proposal on the other hand is compatible with both simultaneous or staged action. By taking away developed countries main excuse for not participating in a climate treaty, the developed countries carbon debts, it would smooth the road for simultaneous action on climate change. See my proposal or here for further details: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6bf2k0dz

Climate Rescue

Aug 14, 2014
12:05

Member


10 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks Jan, yes it's not the timing that solves problems, it's the action. Kyoto and Copenhagen both acted on the incremental symptom (emissions) without even asking how to reverse the dynamics of the system. I wonder what either agreement could have achieved with the proposed action #3? Yes, good to cancel unpayable debts. Though can carbon debt really be cancelled just by taking part in yet another cut-emissions conference? Or do we need some plan to actually cut the carbon debt (surplus carbon concentrations)? See for example https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300404/phaseId/1300404/planId/1309209/

Jan Kunnas

Aug 15, 2014
01:31

Member


11 |
Share via:
Right it is the action that solves the problems, but the timing of the action has a great impact regarding climate change. That is why, we do not have time to wait for everyone to act simultaneously, someone must take the first steps, and the others follow. You are right that my proposal does not really cut the carbon debt in physical terms, for that we would need negative total emissions, such as your carbon pump proposal could achieve. The purpose of the debt swap is to end the blame game on who is responsible for climate change so that we can concentrate on the mitigation and adaptation.

Climate Rescue

Aug 15, 2014
07:19

Member


12 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Either seems possible. When nations wanted to bail out banks they did this simultaneously and overnight. The trick is to design policy that nations can see is in their interests. Hence the proposed actions. A debt swap for physical carbon-negative practice makes sense. This practice is encompassed in proposed actions 3, 5, 6 and 7. The standard policy framework of mitigation-adaptation-geoengineering seems to be part of the problem. How about removing geoengineering and adding the missing element: restoration-mitigation-adaptation?

Climate Colab

Aug 21, 2014
04:11

Member


13 |
Share via:
Proposal only includes one sub-proposal, by the same author. It thus does not meet the contest prompt which requested that authors create an integrated vision that combined multiple ideas from other contests.

Climate Rescue

Aug 26, 2014
04:17

Member


14 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
To be fair, the global plan guidelines say that proposals in this contest "can include any number of sub-proposals from other contests". Mine included 1 and explained that many more could be integrated. Another proposal in this contest was advanced despite listing no sub-proposals at all, https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300701/phaseId/1301103/planId/1309352 Judges could have asked for more info on sub-proposals. Was the actual problem that the proposal acts beyond the bounds of conventional climate policy?
ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.